Ong (Migration)

[2019] AATA 3173

Ong (Migration) [2019] AATA 3173 (10 April 2019)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANT:  Mr Tee Soo Ong

CASE NUMBER:  1722768

HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S):          BCC2017/2791740

MEMBER:M. Edgoose

DATE:10 April 2019  

PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne, Victoria

DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa.

Statement made on 10 April 2019 at 9:16am

CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa – Subclass 500 (Student) visa – genuine temporary entrant – not enrolled in an approved course at the time of decision – decision under review affirmed

LEGISLATION
Education Services for Overseas Students Act 2000 (Cth)
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 65, 359, 359C, 360, 363A
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), r 1.03; Schedule 2, cls 500.111, 500.211, 500.212

CASES
Hasran v MIAC [2010] FCAFC 40

STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS

APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

1. This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection on 13 September 2017 to refuse to grant the applicant a Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).

2. The applicant applied for the visa on 5 August 2017. At the time of application, Class TU contained two subclasses: Subclass 500 (Student) and Subclass 590 (Student Guardian). The applicant applied for the visa to undertake study in Australia and does not claim to meet the criteria for a Subclass 590 (Student Guardian) visa.

3. The delegate in this case refused to grant the visa on the basis that the review applicant did not satisfy the requirements of cl.500.212(a) of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (the Regulations).

4. The applicant provided a copy of the decision record to the Tribunal.

5. On 19 February 2019 the Tribunal wrote to the applicant pursuant to s.359(2) of the Act, inviting the applicant to provide information to the Tribunal including information in relation to enrolment and being a genuine applicant for entry and stay as a student. The invitation was sent to the last address provided in connection with the review and advised that, if the information was not provided in writing by the prescribed period, being 5 March 2019, or within any extended time as requested and granted, the Tribunal may make a decision on the review without taking further steps to obtain the information and the applicant would lose any entitlement they might otherwise have had under the Act to appear before the Tribunal to give evidence and present arguments.

6. The review applicant did not provide the information within the prescribed period and no extension of time was requested. In these circumstances, s.359C applies and pursuant to s.360(3) the review applicant is not entitled to appear before the Tribunal. The effect of s.363A of the Act is that if a review applicant has no entitlement to a hearing, the Tribunal has no power to permit him to appear: Hasran v MIAC [2010] FCAFC 40. The Tribunal has decided to proceed to a decision without taking further steps to obtain the information.

7. It is appropriate to highlight that a decision maker is not required to make the applicant’s case. It is for the applicant to satisfy the Tribunal that the requirements of the Act and Regulations have been met. Although the concept of onus of proof is not appropriate to administrative decision-making, the relevant facts of the individual case have to be supplied by the applicant, in as much detail as is necessary to enable the examiner to establish the relevant facts.

8. In these circumstances, the Tribunal has proceeded to make a decision having regard to the information before it, including the information previously provided by the applicant to the Department.

9. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the under review should be affirmed.

   CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

10. The criteria for a Subclass 500 (Student) visa are set out in Part 500 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations. The primary criteria in cl.500.211 to cl.500.218 must be satisfied by at least one applicant. Other members of the family unit, if any, who are applicants for the visa need only satisfy the secondary criteria.

11. Clause 500.211 relevantly requires that at the time of this decision the applicant is enrolled in course of study: 

    500.211One of the following applies:

    (a)       the applicant is enrolled in a course of study;

    (b)if the application is made in Australia—the applicant is seeking to remain in Australia because the relevant educational institution requires the applicant to do so during the marking of the applicant’s postgraduate thesis;

    (c)if the applicant is a Foreign Affairs student—the applicant has the support of the Foreign Minister for the grant of the visa;

    (d)if the applicant is a Defence student—the applicant has the support of the Defence Minister for the grant of the visa.

12. The applicant did not provide a copy of a current Confirmation of Enrolment (COE) to the Tribunal. The Tribunal has read and had regard to the Departmental file (comprising 51 Folios).

13. Clause 500.211 relevantly requires that at the time of this decision the applicant is enrolled in a course of study: cl.500.211(a). The applicant does not claim to meet any of the alternative criteria in cl.500.211.

14. 'Course of study' is relevantly defined in cl.500.111 of the Regulations as a 'full-time registered course'. 'Registered course' is defined in r.1.03 of the Regulations as a course of education or training provided by an institution, body or person that is registered, under Division 3 of Part 2 of the Education Services for Overseas Students Act 2000, to provide the course to overseas students.

15. The applicant has not provided evidence to the Tribunal that shows current enrolment in a course of study.

16. Therefore, the Tribunal is not satisfied that at the time of this decision, the applicant is enrolled in a course of study and accordingly cl.500.211 is not met.

17. Given the above findings, the Tribunal finds that the criteria for the grant of a Subclass 500 (Student) visa are not met. The applicant does not claim to meet the criteria for a Subclass 590 (Student Guardian) visa. Accordingly, the decision under review should be affirmed.

    DECISION

18. The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa.

    M. Edgoose
    Member